Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Did any of you South Carolinians actually look at the Demint Amendment?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
32 replies to this topic

#16 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,398 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 11:04 AM

Fiz,
I agree that when they were established, unions served a needed purpose. But do you really think that some of these workers should be paid what they are to do BS sinecure type jobs because they can't be let go per the union? How does that actually help company growth? In fact some of the unions' requirements (auto, I am speaking of) have in part led to the companies' need for taxpayer bailouts.

#17 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,081 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 11:10 AM

Fiz,
I agree that when they were established, unions served a needed purpose. But do you really think that some of these workers should be paid what they are to do BS sinecure type jobs because they can't be let go per the union? How does that actually help company growth? In fact some of the unions' requirements (auto, I am speaking of) have in part led to the companies' need for taxpayer bailouts.


And some of the companies, I understand, who got bailout money have eliminated tens of thousands of white collar jobs as a requirement for getting that money ... they can't, though, eliminate the union jobs.

#18 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 01:59 PM

Fiz,
I agree that when they were established, unions served a needed purpose. But do you really think that some of these workers should be paid what they are to do BS sinecure type jobs because they can't be let go per the union? How does that actually help company growth? In fact some of the unions' requirements (auto, I am speaking of) have in part led to the companies' need for taxpayer bailouts.


just because there are bad unions doesn't mean the entire concept needs to be junked. The uaw wouldn't be an issue if companies like gm were operating with a viable business model, or were actually making a product worth buying. As bloated as the uaw might be, that doesn't change the fact marketing departments have been runnng those companies for years and have run it into he ground.

#19 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,756 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 03:34 PM

just because there are bad unions doesn't mean the entire concept needs to be junked. The uaw wouldn't be an issue if companies like gm were operating with a viable business model, or were actually making a product worth buying. As bloated as the uaw might be, that doesn't change the fact marketing departments have been runnng those companies for years and have run it into he ground.


Well by that logic, just because there are bad corporations doesn't mean there should be a union concept.

I'm really on the fence about labor unions. I see the need for them, but I see how they can really hurt a business.

#20 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 04:06 PM

Well by that logic, just because there are bad corporations doesn't mean there should be a union concept.

I'm really on the fence about labor unions. I see the need for them, but I see how they can really hurt a business.


what in the world is a union concept

also corporations have a far worse record than unionized labor. why, just this week!

The drug and medical-device industries are mobilizing to gut a provision in the stimulus bill that would spend $1.1 billion on research comparing medical treatments, portraying it as the first step to government rationing.

The fight over the provision is highlighting the tensions behind President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul the health-care system. The administration hopes to expand coverage while limiting use of treatments that don't work well, but any efforts that might reduce coverage are politically sensitive.

The House version of the stimulus package sent shudders through the drug and medical-device industry. In a staff report describing the bill, the House said treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive "will no longer be prescribed."


in the words of Paul Krugman

Because freedom is all about laying out vast sums on medical treatments without knowing whether they’re actually doing any good.

Remember this the next time someone talks about “entitlement reform” (which will probably happen in the next three seconds or so.) Health care costs are the main reason long-term fiscal projections look so scary — and here we have corporate interest trying to prevent us, not from trying to spend our health dollar more wisely, but from even trying to find out what we get for the health care dollar.



#21 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,756 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 04:26 PM

what in the world is a union concept

also corporations have a far worse record than unionized labor. why, just this week!


in the words of Paul Krugman


Cmon now, it's obvious I mistyped. :rolleyes:

You used faulty logic to defend unions and failed to even address the question.

You don't need to convince me that corporations have bad track record. I'm not an idiot.

#22 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 04:28 PM

Cmon now, it's obvious I mistyped. :rolleyes:

You used faulty logic to defend unions and failed to even address the question.

You don't need to convince me that corporations have bad track record. I'm not an idiot.


that wasn't faulty logic. it was a specific response to criticisms of unions by way of the UAW, and the automotive industry in general.

i think the UAW is an awful union, but the problems with the automakers are far ranging, and it's unfair to blame their fall on the UAW.

#23 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,756 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 04:50 PM

Fiz,
I agree that when they were established, unions served a needed purpose. But do you really think that some of these workers should be paid what they are to do BS sinecure type jobs because they can't be let go per the union? How does that actually help company growth? In fact some of the unions' requirements (auto, I am speaking of) have in part led to the companies' need for taxpayer bailouts.


That was the question.

just because there are bad unions doesn't mean the entire concept needs to be junked. The uaw wouldn't be an issue if companies like gm were operating with a viable business model, or were actually making a product worth buying. As bloated as the uaw might be, that doesn't change the fact marketing departments have been runnng those companies for years and have run it into he ground.


Your answer - just because one union is bad doesn't mean they all are. I brought up the fact that if you use that logic then - just because one corporation is bad doesn't mean they all are. You then go on about other things that caused the auto industry failure, but don't address the question that the uaw, in part, had to do with it. That is a logical fallacy referred to as red herring.

#24 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 04:53 PM

and i think arguing over employee pay is a red herring which disguises the real issue.

I've never built a car. i don't know what goes into it or what it takes, so I don't know if they're being overpaid.

are they being overpaid in comparison to what people in another country without any laws protecting workers would get paid? yes.

#25 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,756 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 05:35 PM

and i think arguing over employee pay is a red herring which disguises the real issue.

I've never built a car. i don't know what goes into it or what it takes, so I don't know if they're being overpaid.

are they being overpaid in comparison to what people in another country without any laws protecting workers would get paid? yes.


Fair enough.

I'm not an expert either, but I remember being told how much just regular workers make and it was very shocking.

I agree there needs to be laws to protect workers, but it's not working in it's current form.

#26 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,251 posts

Posted 12 February 2009 - 08:18 AM

and i think arguing over employee pay is a red herring which disguises the real issue.

I've never built a car. i don't know what goes into it or what it takes, so I don't know if they're being overpaid.

are they being overpaid in comparison to what people in another country without any laws protecting workers would get paid? yes.


I've heard that labor is about 10% of the cost to build a car in Detroit. I heard this from a UAW member, so I take it with a grain of salt. Seems kind of low when you factor in that Detroit automakers have around 800,000 UAW retirees. These retirees cost money. My aunt received a Family Discount on a Saturn last January because her Uncle worked for GM- 25 years ago. That is f*cked up.

Something else regarding non-auto unions.... My association just sponsored a large trade show that took place in Chicago at McCormick PLace last month. Do you know how much the Union electrician made, for one hour minimum, to plug in a lamp on one of our exhibitors displays........ $95/HR Straight Time; $132/HR Overtime; and $171/HR Double Time (weekend rate). A Rigger Foreman's rates are: $95.35/HR ST; $143/HR OT; and $190.70 DT. All this labor has 1 hour minimum and for items like a forklift, you have to hire 2 guys because of union rules. One guy to drive the truck and one guy to spot (which means walking in front or behind as a second set of eyes).

I'd say that's more than an electrician working at a trade show hall in a right-to-work state is making. Atlanta is a prime example.

Edited by SouthCakPanther, 12 February 2009 - 08:21 AM.


#27 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,398 posts

Posted 12 February 2009 - 09:55 AM

I've heard that labor is about 10% of the cost to build a car in Detroit. I heard this from a UAW member, so I take it with a grain of salt. Seems kind of low when you factor in that Detroit automakers have around 800,000 UAW retirees. These retirees cost money. My aunt received a Family Discount on a Saturn last January because her Uncle worked for GM- 25 years ago. That is f*cked up.

That's another ginormous part of it, along with the fact they can retire far earlier than regular workers on full pension too I believe. My one uncle worked for years for a company who supplied a union auto maker with certain parts and has talked about that issue to us. Foreign auto makers don't have those discounts and don't have unions and are doing better sales wise, aren't they? If you allocate a bunch of $$ to guys who are "off the books" in retirement or workers who can't be fired or make about 75% more than what their actual skill level merits solely due to union mandates not a free market competition, it keeps you from spending elsewhere like R & D. That's just common sense. Think of it like an NFL team trying to operate under a salary cap. If they have a lot of the cap going to dead $$ like guys they have cut, they can't be as competitive.

#28 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 12 February 2009 - 10:08 AM

dammit we spend too much on health care

THAT'S the reason no one is buying the aztec!

#29 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 12 February 2009 - 10:14 AM

if only we didn't have to pay these retiremet benefits those stockpiles of SSRs would be flying off the shelf!

#30 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,398 posts

Posted 12 February 2009 - 10:36 AM

As I said, the amount and extent of the benefit spending limits R & D. When our company started having to pay the piper for irresponsible spending, the first thing they did was take away benefits. We had the choice of going elsewhere to find work if we were that put out by it. Most didn't because the bennies were still decent. The reason the union guys don't is that no one else on earth is going to pay them 85 K for that type of work, simple as that.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com